The brainchild of Jimmy Wales, among others, and the original project of the subsequent Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), Wikipedia's stated objective is to have an officially 'neutral point of view' (NPOV); but is often accused by people on one side of an issue of being biased toward the other side, and vice-versa. This is true across the political spectrum, as well as for many other issues and subjects. Wikipedia is the biggest fish in the global wiki pond, and receives far more traffic, andediting activity, than any other wiki. However, despite Wikipedias' claim to being an 'encyclopedia'; many academic institutes and other professional organisations recommend that Wikipedia is not used as a primary source of information, due to the fact that many articles are frequently incorrect, can be adversely biased, and many articles have a seemingly extremely low threshold of 'reliable source' references and citations. Indeed, many Wikipedia articles fail their own verifiability criteria, and can remain for many years without any citations, despite highly visible warning banners highlighting the lack of said citations (and threatening to delete said unreferenced articles); this even includes biographical articles for living people. Also, the English Wikipedia allows articles to be 'promoted' to a good article (GA) status – despite failing their own criteria on having adequate reliable source citations, editorial conjecture, and even original research. [1]

items in italics are either valid Wikipedias, but set to read-only, or valid but closed Wikipedia wikis. These actions are usually taken as a result of a 'community vote' or other discussion procedure on Meta-Wiki.

items struck out have been either moved and deleted (and hosted elsewhere), or were never an official Wikipedia despite steps taken to create them as official.